Prosecutor assigned to investigate behind-the-scenes deal, negotiations made by Montgomery County commissioners

Former Texas Rep. Steve Toth, left, and Walt Sass expressed their difference of opinion during campaigning for May's road bond election earlier this year. That road bond was defeated by voters.

Former Texas Rep. Steve Toth, left, and Walt Sass expressed their...

A special prosecutor has been assigned to determine whether behind-the-scenes negotiations could void a last-minute deal struck by Montgomery County commissioners to get a scaled-back $270 million road bond package on the upcoming November ballot.

At question is whether some commissioners and a powerful tea party group violated the open meetings law. It would mark the third defeat of a road bond proposal in the past decade, with the last one coming four months ago when voters rejected a 20 percent larger bond proposal.

"We're going to aggressively inquire into all communications and activities that led up to commissioners putting this latest bond proposal on the ballot," said Chris Downey, the Houston attorney appointed as special prosecutor. "We need to move quickly to determine if anything criminal was done before the Nov. 3 election is held. It could be voidable."

A Texas Ranger has been ordered to gather emails, phone records and statements from those involved in the negotiations. Downey will then use the information to determine whether a quorum of elected officials intentionally held secret deliberations with the Texas Patriots PAC tea party that decided upon the bond proposal.

Translator

To read this article in one of Houston's most-spoken languages, click on the button below.

County Judge Craig Doyal and Commissioner Charlie Riley have acknowledged meeting with the tea party group, but that doesn't represent a quorum of the five-member court. However, if emails or phones were used to include other commissioners in the decision process, it could become a "walking quorum," which violates the law.

"This can be a way for officials to avoid open discussions in a public venue. Under the law, the public is to be notified of when and where a meeting is held so that anyone can attend," said Dan Bevarly, interim executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. "It sounds like elected officials in this case might later come together in public only to rubber-stamp decisions made earlier in private."

On Thursday night, The Woodlands Township Board voted unanimously to withdraw support given to the November bond package in light of the investigation.

"It stinks. It's a back-room deal that lacks transparency," said Township Chairman Bruce Tough. "A special interest group (Texas Patriot PAC) is dictating terms of the road bond to the county. They are not elected to represent us."

Growing population

Nothing has proven more polarizing or contentious than a road bond election in this fast-growing county of half a million people. Residents lately have not been able to agree on what should be done to handle the growing population that is expected to surge to 2 million by 2035.

The last road bond was defeated four months ago mainly due to a huge outpouring of voters in The Woodlands who opposed a $22 million expansion of the Woodlands Parkway. Opponents charged the expansion would dump 5,000 additional cars a day onto the parkway that leads into the heart of their master-planned community.

Doyal and Riley, who supported the bond package, pointed to studies that showed traffic would increase on that roadway regardless if it were expanded.

At first, Commissioner James Noack from The Woodlands was the lone commissioner willing to consider putting a revised bond package before voters in November. The rest of the court, still licking their wounds after that last defeat, wanted to wait until next year when a detailed road study would be complete and they could hold community meetings to assure citizen support.

The court voted 4-1 against having a bond proposal on the November ballot, while ignoring mayors, township directors and community leaders who begged them to take action to ease the county's traffic gridlock.

Needs 'too acute' to wait

But then just days before the Aug. 24 deadline to get on the ballot, Doyal said he decided the county's mobility needs were "too acute" to wait.

So he and Riley, with the help of a political consultant, Marc Davenport, reached out to the Texas Patriot PAC, the most vocal opponent of the last bond proposal.

"I wanted to see if we could reach a level of trust on something that everyone could support," Doyal said after calling the November bond election. "Also, I wanted to be able to claim a fair share of new state transportation money that will soon be available."

So after Doyal and Riley signed a "memorandum of understanding" with three members of the tea party, an emergency meeting was held Aug. 24. It was the last possible date that the court could put the bond election on Nov. 3 ballot.

Commissioner Mike Meador said he was the only commissioner who apparently had received no emails about the proposed deal.

"I was excluded from the process," Meador said. "I told them that they were going down a dangerous road by letting a small special interest group design a road bond for an entire county. It's a dangerous door to open and hard one to close."

However, he joined in the unanimous vote to put the road bond package on the November ballot due to the dire condition of the county's roads. But he refused to support the resolutions that had been negotiated with the Patriot PAC, which he said could not be enforced. Those resolutions dealt with calling a second bond election next year and using money from the county's budget rather than bonds for road maintenance.

The Chronicle has put in an open records request for all emails from both government and personal servers involving negotiations between commissioners and the Patriot PAC for the revised bond package, including those linked to the political consultant, Davenport. The county attorney's office said the request Friday was still under review.

Asked Friday about the inquiry into possible open meeting violations, Doyal said, "I can't comment now because it's under investigation. But obviously traffic has been at a standstill all across the county, and people have been begging to get this bond issue back on the ballot."

Likewise, Noack said he could not make any comment and Commissioners Charlie Riley and Jim Clark did not return phone calls.

Disagreements

The Texas Patriot PAC issued a written statement: "All private citizens have a right to petition people they elected to serve them. Meeting with two commissioners is not a violation of the open meetings laws. Any suggestion that these meetings violated such laws is entirely without merit."

Because of the fast-approaching deadline to get a bond proposal on the ballot, the organization said there was insufficient time for more input from residents.

"Throughout this process, we thought of ourselves as representatives of all the conservative citizen groups. The framework ultimately agreed to was representative of what all the groups had been proposing since (the last bond defeat)," the statement said.

However, Duane Ham, who had served on the committee that supported the last failed bond proposal, disagreed. He recently formed the Texas Conservative Tea Party Coalition that the Patriot PAC called the "fake tea party." "It's sad when a few are controlling and dictating what happens in our county instead of our people."

Township director Gordy Bunch, one of the main opponents working to defeat the last bond election, blamed commissioners for wasting 3 1/2 months before trying to pull a revised bond proposal together for November.

However, he joined the rest of the Township directors in withdrawing his support of the November bond because of the investigation hanging over it. He said he was sent a copy of the revised bond package to see if he would support it but he was never part of the negotiating team.

Anyone convicted of violating the Open Meetings Act can be sentenced up to 180 days in jail and fined up to $500.

"If I find reason to bring all this before a grand jury, we have one in place who can look at it," said Downey, the special prosecutor. "There's lots of money at issue with the election and the bonds. We don't want to go through it and have to do it again."

"This can be a way for officials to avoid open discussions in a public venue. Under the law, the public is to receive notice of when and where a meeting is held so that anyone can attend," said Dan Bevarly, interim executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. "It sounds like elected officials in this case might later come together in public only to rubber-stamp decisions made earlier in private."

On Thursday night, The Woodlands Township Board voted unanimously to withdraw support given to the November bond package in light of the investigation.

"It stinks. It's a back-room deal that lacks transparency," said Township Chairman Bruce Tough. "A special interest group (Texas Patriot PAC) is dictating terms of the road bond to the county. They are not elected to represent us."

Nothing has proven more polarizing or contentious than a road bond election in this fast-growing county of half a million people. Residents lately have not been able to agree on what should be done to handle the growing population that is expected to surge to 2 million by 2035.

The last road bond was defeated four months ago mainly due to a huge outpouring of voters in The Woodlands who opposed a $22 million expansion of the Woodlands Parkway. Opponents charged the expansion would dump 5,000 additional cars a day onto the parkway that leads into the heart of their master-planned community.

Doyal and Riley, who supported the bond package, pointed to studies that showed traffic would increase on that roadway regardless if it were expanded.

At first, Commissioner James Noack from The Woodlands was the lone commissioner willing to consider putting a revised bond package before voters in November. The rest of the court, still licking their wounds after that last defeat, wanted to wait until next year when a detailed road study would be complete and they could hold community meetings to assure citizen support.

The court voted 4-1 against having a bond proposal on the November ballot, while ignoring mayors, township directors and community leaders who begged them to take action to ease the county's traffic gridlock.

But then just days before the Aug. 24 deadline to get on the ballot, Doyal said he decided the county's mobility needs were "too acute" to wait.

So he and Riley, with the help of a political consultant, Marc Davenport, reached out to the Texas Patriot PAC, the most vocal opponent of the last bond proposal.

"I wanted to see if we could reach a level of trust on something that everyone could support," Doyal said after calling the November bond election. "Also, I wanted to be able to claim a fair share of new state transportation money that will soon be available."

So after Doyal and Riley signed a "memorandum of understanding" with three members of the tea party, an emergency meeting was held Aug. 24. It was the last possible date that the court could put the bond election on Nov. 3 ballot.

Commissioner Mike Meador said he was the only commissioner who apparently had received no emails about the proposed deal.

"I was excluded from the process," Meador said. "I told them that then they were going down a dangerous road by letting a small special interest group design a road bond for an entire county. It's a dangerous door to open and hard one to close."

However, he joined in the unanimous vote to put the road bond package on the November ballot due to the dire condition of the county's roads. But he refused to support the resolutions that had been negotiated with the Patriot PAC, which he said could not be enforced. Those resolutions dealt with calling a second bond election next year and using money from the county's budget rather than bonds for road maintenance.

The Chronicle has put in an open records request for all emails from both government and personal servers involving negotiations between commissioners and the Patriot PAC for the revised bond package, including those linked to the political consultant, Davenport. The county attorney's office said the request Friday was still under review.

Asked Friday about the inquiry into possible open meeting violations, Doyal said, "I can't comment now because it's under investigation. But obviously traffic has been at a standstill all across the county, and people have been begging to get this bond issue back on the ballot."

Likewise, Noack said he could not make any comment and Commissioners Charlie Riley and Jim Clark did not return phone calls.

The Texas Patriot PAC issued a written statement: "All private citizens have a right to petition people they elected to serve them. Meeting with two commissioners is not a violation of the open meetings laws. Any suggestion that these meetings violated such laws is entirely without merit."

Because of the fast-approaching deadline to get a bond proposal on the ballot, the organization said there was insufficient time for more input from residents.

"Throughout this process, we thought of ourselves as representatives of all the conservative citizen groups. The framework ultimately agreed to was representative of what all the groups had been proposing since (the last bond defeat)," the statement said.

However, Duane Ham, who had served on the committee that supported the last failed bond proposal, disagreed. He recently formed the Texas Conservative Tea Party Coalition that the Patriot PAC called the "fake tea party." "It's sad when a few are controlling and dictating what happens in our county instead of our people."Township director Gordy Bunch, one of the main opponents working to defeat the last bond election, blamed commissioners for wasting 3 1/2 months before trying to pull a revised bond proposal together for November.

However, he joined the rest of the Township directors in withdrawing his support of the November bond because of the investigation hanging over it. He said he was sent a copy of the revised bond package to see if he would support it but he was never part of the negotiating team.

Anyone convicted of violating the Open Meetings Act can be sentenced up to 180 days in jail and fined up to $500.

"If I find reason to bring all this before a grand jury, we have one in place who can look at it," said Downey, the special prosecutor. "There's lots of money at issue with the election and the bonds. We don't want to go through it and have to do it again."

"This can be a way for officials to avoid open discussions in a public venue. Under the law, the public is to receive notice of when and where a meeting is held so that anyone can attend," said Dan Bevarly, interim executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. "It sounds like elected officials in this case might later come together in public only to rubber-stamp decisions made earlier in private."

On Thursday night, The Woodlands Township Board voted unanimously to withdraw support given to the November bond package in light of the investigation.

"It stinks. It's a back-room deal that lacks transparency," said Township Chairman Bruce Tough. "A special interest group (Texas Patriot PAC) is dictating terms of the road bond to the county. They are not elected to represent us."

Nothing has proven more polarizing or contentious than a road bond election in this fast-growing county of half a million people. Residents lately have not been able to agree on what should be done to handle the growing population that is expected to surge to 2 million by 2035.

The last road bond was defeated four months ago mainly due to a huge outpouring of voters in The Woodlands who opposed a $22 million expansion of the Woodlands Parkway. Opponents charged the expansion would dump 5,000 additional cars a day onto the parkway that leads into the heart of their master-planned community.

Doyal and Riley, who supported the bond package, pointed to studies that showed traffic would increase on that roadway regardless if it were expanded.

At first, Commissioner James Noack from The Woodlands was the lone commissioner willing to consider putting a revised bond package before voters in November. The rest of the court, still licking their wounds after that last defeat, wanted to wait until next year when a detailed road study would be complete and they could hold community meetings to assure citizen support.

The court voted 4-1 against having a bond proposal on the November ballot, while ignoring mayors, township directors and community leaders who begged them to take action to ease the county's traffic gridlock.

But then just days before the Aug. 24 deadline to get on the ballot, Doyal said he decided the county's mobility needs were "too acute" to wait.

So he and Riley, with the help of a political consultant, Marc Davenport, reached out to the Texas Patriot PAC, the most vocal opponent of the last bond proposal.

"I wanted to see if we could reach a level of trust on something that everyone could support," Doyal said after calling the November bond election. "Also, I wanted to be able to claim a fair share of new state transportation money that will soon be available."

So after Doyal and Riley signed a "memorandum of understanding" with three members of the tea party, an emergency meeting was held Aug. 24. It was the last possible date that the court could put the bond election on Nov. 3 ballot.

Commissioner Mike Meador said he was the only commissioner who apparently had received no emails about the proposed deal.

"I was excluded from the process," Meador said. "I told them that then they were going down a dangerous road by letting a small special interest group design a road bond for an entire county. It's a dangerous door to open and hard one to close."

However, he joined in the unanimous vote to put the road bond package on the November ballot due to the dire condition of the county's roads. But he refused to support the resolutions that had been negotiated with the Patriot PAC, which he said could not be enforced. Those resolutions dealt with calling a second bond election next year and using money from the county's budget rather than bonds for road maintenance.

The Chronicle has put in an open records request for all emails from both government and personal servers involving negotiations between commissioners and the Patriot PAC for the revised bond package, including those linked to the political consultant, Davenport. The county attorney's office said the request Friday was still under review.

Asked Friday about the inquiry into possible open meeting violations, Doyal said, "I can't comment now because it's under investigation. But obviously traffic has been at a standstill all across the county, and people have been begging to get this bond issue back on the ballot."

Likewise, Noack said he could not make any comment and Commissioners Charlie Riley and Jim Clark did not return phone calls.

The Texas Patriot PAC issued a written statement: "All private citizens have a right to petition people they elected to serve them. Meeting with two commissioners is not a violation of the open meetings laws. Any suggestion that these meetings violated such laws is entirely without merit."

Because of the fast-approaching deadline to get a bond proposal on the ballot, the organization said there was insufficient time for more input from residents.

"Throughout this process, we thought of ourselves as representatives of all the conservative citizen groups. The framework ultimately agreed to was representative of what all the groups had been proposing since (the last bond defeat)," the statement said.

However, Duane Ham, who had served on the committee that supported the last failed bond proposal, disagreed. He recently formed the Texas Conservative Tea Party Coalition that the Patriot PAC called the "fake tea party." "It's sad when a few are controlling and dictating what happens in our county instead of our people."Township director Gordy Bunch, one of the main opponents working to defeat the last bond election, blamed commissioners for wasting 31/2 months before trying to pull a revised bond proposal together for November.

However, he joined the rest of the Township directors in withdrawing his support of the November bond because of the investigation hanging over it. He said he was sent a copy of the revised bond package to see if he would support it but he was never part of the negotiating team.

Anyone convicted of violating the Open Meetings Act can be sentenced up to 180 days in jail and fined up to $500.

"If I find reason to bring all this before a grand jury, we have one in place who can look at it," said Downey, the special prosecutor. "There's lots of money at issue with the election and the bonds. We don't want to go through it and have to do it again."